I keep reading the QB threads on who to draft & posters keep chirping on about Schneider & 'the Green Bay way', 'a product of Green Bay's thinking', 'the GB philosophy' when it comes to drafting QB's. Even after signing Portis seasons back people were saying it. Other than Hasselbeck, who have Green Bay drafted late & turned to profit down the line through trades for picks? Do they really have such a golden success worth emulating, I've tried to look into it so feel free to make me look stupid.

It's not a golden success as much as just a strategy. You already have a Franchise QB in place (Rogers, Favre) so why not take a guy with some potential and wait for other teams to come calling. Mark Brunell, Hasselbeck, Aaron Brooks, Matt Flynn off the top of my head. Even Rogers could have been one of those guys if wasn't such a great QB. its just a philosophy or strategy that JS has likely brought with him from GB

It is not a savings plan, but it can be. Green Bay got nothing for Flynn, true, but that was because cap situations hit Green Bay badly following the 2011 season. Rodgers in the first? Brohm in the 2nd? Both were called luxury picks at a time when the Packers had some real needs.

Labeling it as a Green Bay thing is disingenuous anyway. Having two good QBs nearly always results in one of them leaving, hopefully being turned into draft capital as he goes. Cassell, Smith, just two examples of turning your backup into collateral. Sometimes you keep the Veteran, a situation we won't see for a while since our young guy is in place, sometimes you sell the backup. Over the course of the next few years we may see a variety of Seattle backups be sought after, just because they have physical skills and other GMs figure they have learned something from Wilson's famous work ethic.

GoldenIsThyTate wrote:It's not a golden success as much as just a strategy. You already have a Franchise QB in place (Rogers, Favre) so why not take a guy with some potential and wait for other teams to come calling. Mark Brunell, Hasselbeck, Aaron Brooks, Matt Flynn off the top of my head. Even Rogers could have been one of those guys if wasn't such a great QB. its just a philosophy or strategy that JS has likely brought with him from GB

Matt Flynn has never been a starter. The list should really be Brunell, Hasselbeck, Brooks, and I would add Rogers

Hasselbeck wrote:Matt Flynn should be our starter. Wilson is nothing more than a backup and will never amount to anything in this league.

EmbattleTheeHawks wrote:I keep reading the QB threads on who to draft & posters keep chirping on about Schneider & 'the Green Bay way', 'a product of Green Bay's thinking', 'the GB philosophy' when it comes to drafting QB's. Even after signing Portis seasons back people were saying it. Other than Hasselbeck, who have Green Bay drafted late & turned to profit down the line through trades for picks? Do they really have such a golden success worth emulating, I've tried to look into it so feel free to make me look stupid.

I just did a quick recap of this on another forum. I'll just cut/paste it here.

Bottom line is, it's not worth it. It should only be viewed as an ancillary byproduct of maintaining QB depth.

REPOST:

Attyla the Hawk wrote:^This.

It's not a unique rosterbation concept. But in reality, the return is less than the pick originally expended. The only way it turns out is if you are looking at 7th round/UDFAs. Unhyped backups with no tangible record are rarely worth more than 6th round picks.

Don't think for a second that another team is going to give up a 3rd round pick and swap places in the 2nd round for your unproven 3rd round pick. That simply never happens in a million.... ok well maybe just ONCE.

The other problem too, is that we just remember the Matt Hasselbecks and the Mark Brunell successes. I'd agree that Green Bay is the model franchise for developing prospects. Here is the complete list of QBs they've selected since they picked Aaron Rodgers in the first round:

1. 2005 Rodgers (24)2. 2006 Ingle Martin (148) out of the league, no value3. 2008 Brian Brohm (56) Cut, signed off it's practice squad by Buffalo. No picks of any kind. No value4. 2008 Matt Flynn (209) Signed as UDFA. Partially resulted in compensatory pick (#167). Loss of Scott Wells is the more dominant factor as it's predominantly based on playing time, with secondary emphasis on salary.5. 2012 BJ Coleman (243) out of the league, no value

So if Green Bay is the model/best team to develop QBs for picks, then in essence they traded:

Give:

2006 5th2008 2nd 2008 7th2012 7th

Receive:

2013 5th round pick.

That's way more than we spent to get Percy Harvin.

It is a fantasy to think you can cull QBs and turn them into picks. The reality is, teams don't trade for backups often. Even the good teams go through several anonymous failed attempts before they turn over a prospect that outside fans might remember. We simply don't pay close enough attention to the failures and never account for them. But if that's something you are proposing, then you have to account for the wasted picks too. And when you do you can see it's just a complete and utter waste of time.

Read the second link on Brohm. Obviously in 2008, GB fans were thinking the exact same thing. And it turned out to be fools gold in the end. It's not a new concept. But it's wiser to learn from other people's past mistakes than to learn them on your own the hard way.

I think you have to go back to when they took Brunnel, Brooks etc. There was one year they had four eventual starters there at the start of camp. Its been a while true. The philosophy is they and maybe more so the eagles have taken QBs and made them into draft capitol if not just really competent back ups.